}{B Posted September 28, 2010 Share #1 Posted September 28, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) [ATTACH]223324[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]223325[/ATTACH] Leica M4P & 50mm Elmar M - Kodak Ektar ISO100 I haven't used colour print film in a long time but with the demise of Fuji Sensia slide film I thought I would give it a try. I was concerned that it would be difficult to come up with a scanner profile for colour print film and so I included a photographers grey card in the first few frames and this gave me a reference point. I now have three different profiles one with warm tones, one that has more blue and is colder and a lighter more green leaning profile. I can't remember which ones I used for these but I would suspect that the second one is the warmer profile judging from the colour of the wall. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 28, 2010 Posted September 28, 2010 Hi }{B, Take a look here First results with Ektar. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
andybarton Posted September 28, 2010 Share #2 Posted September 28, 2010 Do you want an honest opinion? My opinion of Ektar has been made more than once on this forum, FWIW (Better wait until I get home to the calibrated monitor - but on this PC monitor, the colour you have here isn't a patch on the work you have been doing with Sensia) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
}{B Posted September 28, 2010 Author Share #3 Posted September 28, 2010 Do you want an honest opinion? My opinion of Ektar has been made more than once on this forum, FWIW (Better wait until I get home to the calibrated monitor - but on this PC monitor, the colour you have here isn't a patch on the work you have been doing with Sensia) Honest opinions are always welcome as there is always something to be learned. Using Ektar is just an experiment as it is supposed to be scanner friendly but I'm not a big fan of films that have oversaturated colours added to which the colours of my Ektar scans are not consistant which is why I have kept three slightly different profiles. I'm in the middle of the last of three rolls and I may try Fuji Reala as a less saturated alternative. I used it years ago when it first came out and I liked it well enough then for 5''x7'' prints. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveleo Posted September 29, 2010 Share #4 Posted September 29, 2010 i am no scanning expert, but . . . the colors here don't just look de-saturated, they look "thin" and harsh and almost metalic on my laptop screen. i also see lots of noise in the blue sky (or maybe that is grain? ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ash Posted September 29, 2010 Share #5 Posted September 29, 2010 I agree with Dave. For me they do not represent the charakter of Ektar. If you do not like vivid colors then Ektar is not your film. Regards Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
}{B Posted September 29, 2010 Author Share #6 Posted September 29, 2010 Thanks for your comments. These colours are the result of my producing a profile for my scanner and some post processing in Lightroom rather than just Ektar with any scanning cast removed. I'm suprised that they look that de-saturated as on my monitor the tree in particular is a strong green colour. Of course my screen isn't calibrated which could account for it. I'm not fixed on Ektar and I will revist some of my scans to see if there is room for improvement. I may well try a different print film in the hope that I can produce a profile that will give me more consistant results. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geaibleu Posted September 29, 2010 Share #7 Posted September 29, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Ektar is far better than that! Maybe the problem lies in your choice of image, and among other things in the pp. As an example, the stone little wall in #2 cannot be that yellow, even under british skies! For your own "security and comfort" as they say aboard Virgin planes, try to get a less cluttered site such as #1 which leads to the wrong conclusion. Needless to say I am a Kodak fan... and their negative films normally gives subtle colors. These harsh tones are not Kodak's trade mark, unless your one hour lab goofed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted September 30, 2010 Share #8 Posted September 30, 2010 Ektar has anything but subtle colours. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
}{B Posted September 30, 2010 Author Share #9 Posted September 30, 2010 Thanks for all your comments. I've just got back from a walk that took me back to the location in photo no2 and I looked at the scene again in the light of the comments being posted. The ' tree ' is actually in two parts an overgrown Holly bush in the foreground with a tree growing behind it. The leaves on the Holly bush are a dark shiny bottle green clearly darker than the leaves on the tree behind which are a lighter, brighter green but still darker than the grass. The yellow in the tree foliage is fading now but at the time of the photo it was bright and rich. In my photo there isn't enough differentiation between the green of the Holly leaves and those of the tree. The wall is too yellowish which is a result of an overly warm profile. The greens are probably more effected by my processing in Lightroom. Personally, as I see them on my screen, I'm not displeased with the colours of either of these shots but I'd like to try some alternative colour print films before settling on a standard film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geaibleu Posted September 30, 2010 Share #10 Posted September 30, 2010 Andy Barton has anything but sound judgement about Ektar and its possibilities! LOL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
allamande Posted September 30, 2010 Share #11 Posted September 30, 2010 I actually like the first one. The trouble with it, as it looks on my screen, isn't the color, but the blown highlights. Ektar's possibilities are nicely displayed in the last example! You might also try Portra, which is my favorite. Ece Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauledell Posted September 30, 2010 Share #12 Posted September 30, 2010 My only experience with Ektar was years ago when I found to be quite over saturated with the colors and not too much latitude for exposure. I never seen any grain to it for that was one of its main attributes as being grain less. I have only used transparency color film up til now but it's apparent that E-6 processing in a lab is becoming impossible. Paul Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveleo Posted September 30, 2010 Share #13 Posted September 30, 2010 film / scanning issue aside, i think green leaves reflecting light (with no light passing through them translucently to balance it out) are always always ugly unless you get up very close and fill the frame with a leaf or two and even then it's a crap-shoot. esp in harsh sunlight like this . . . i don't think you can make a pretty picture of this scene in this light without lots of post-processing. okay . . . i'm done now . . . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted September 30, 2010 Share #14 Posted September 30, 2010 Andy Barton has anything but sound judgement about Ektar and its possibilities!LOL. Hmm.. I believe that a lot depends upon the lab that is processing the film. Certainly, in my experience, the colours are super-saturated and horrible. Nothing I have seen on the web, to date, has done anything to persuade me that this is anything but an "emperor's new clothes" film. There are, in my opinion, much better alternatives for colour C41 film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geaibleu Posted September 30, 2010 Share #15 Posted September 30, 2010 Thus, Andy Barton the only conclusion is twofold: 1) you did not look at the picture I posted ie an Ektar 100 scan., and 2) your rather abrupt original reaction was and still is ill-founded, regardless of real or assumed experience. The fact of the matter is that each task calls for a specific film, and the obvious knowledge of how to use it properly. Sure enough, some films (Portra ) maybe better suited than Ektar to perform specific tasks. Courtesy does require that any such blunt and offensive statement ought to be "moderated" when one's experience, real or assumed might not be as universal as claimed. As someone once stated, it is not because you have not personally seen Joseph Staline that he did not exist. Hence, next time, please voice an opinion not an anathema for anything beyond your experience. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted September 30, 2010 Share #16 Posted September 30, 2010 Of course I did look at your photograph My comments are based on personal experience. I have used Ektar and I have looked at plenty of other photographs taken with it. I have yet to see one that couldn't have been better taken on an alternative film. There is no need to attack me personally for what is my opinion. If you like it, then that's fine with me. Please advise where I have made an offensive statement. Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveleo Posted September 30, 2010 Share #17 Posted September 30, 2010 . . . . it is not because you have not personally seen Joseph Staline that he did not exist. . . . that pretty much clears up the how-to-scan-Ektar issue (for me anyway ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
}{B Posted October 1, 2010 Author Share #18 Posted October 1, 2010 It wasn't my intention to stir up a hornet's nest over this issue, after all the photos are just my attempt to produce images that I'm happy with. There is so much variation in colour and saturation available in both the scanning and post processing in Lightroom that I would have thought that it was impossible to post a definative photograph and say this is exactly as Kodak want Ektar to look. We all probably have slightly different ideas and tastes regarding the 'look' that we want our photographs to have. An example of this is the rework I've done on photo no2. The greens are now much closer to what I originally saw and some of the warm yellow cast has gone from the stonework. Is it better or worse? That's a matter of personal opinion but it's still Ektar. [ATTACH]223709[/ATTACH] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted October 1, 2010 Share #19 Posted October 1, 2010 Use Portra as it is most like a raw file. Add saturation /contrast in photoshop as desired. When it is built into the film, it is hard to get rid of. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
}{B Posted October 1, 2010 Author Share #20 Posted October 1, 2010 Use Portra as it is most like a raw file. Add saturation /contrast in photoshop as desired. When it is built into the film, it is hard to get rid of. I tried to get hold of Portra when I sent this roll of Ektar off for processing. The lab's price list showed that they stocked it but it wasn't very clear which type and they sent me five rolls of Portra120 rather than 135. It turns out they only stock 120 so if I want it I'll have to order online from another supplier. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.